Mockery and Pastafarianism?

The Discovery Institute has argued that the FSM is an attempt to mock "traditional religion."[3] Indeed, self-professed believers in the Flying Spaghetti Monster have called themselves "Pastafarians".

I don't quite get the connection between those two sentences. How does them calling themselves "Pastafarians" argue for or against FSM mocking traditional religion? I get that the entire thing is (intelligently) designed to mock a whole bunch of stuff, but those two sentences made me go "Huh?" in the current form. --Sid 3050 11:58, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

It's not the designation of themselves as Pastafarians but their establishment of FSM as a deity which is the mockery. Anyway, it's a good parody and I always get a laugh out of it. --Ed Poor 12:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, those are my thoughts, too. Just found those sentences next to each other a tad confusing. Thanks for verifying/clarifying. --Sid 3050 12:13, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

The purpose of this ruse of a vulgar depiction is the same one used in Germany from 1933 to 1945 against certain religious groups. There are still present today those who get a laugh or two from those depictions. The historic use of these types should therefore be presented in their appropriate historic context. Their associations should be noted to allow such distinctions to be presented. You can still go to places where this kind of stereotyping isn't such a light hearted poke in the ribs. Savvy?--Roopilots6 12:09, 23 November 2007 (EST)

Food for thought

Finally a theory I can sink my teeth into. I can't stomach much of the tripe that evolutionists bring to the table.

This doesn't mean that ID can explain the origin of life, but rather that ID asserts naturalism can't either. --Ed Poor 12:02, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

The whole problem with this ID discussion is that both attackers and defenders of ID don't see the difference between the scientific and the religious domain. The scientific domain describes WHAT happens, and here the only theory available is evolution. The religious domain however, describes WHY it happens, and here everybody should be free to find an explanation. Christians will say God coordinates the whole process, while atheists will say it is just a natural process, where everything happens by accident and without a deeper meaning.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Carcoke(talk)

Your analysis is incomplete. The Bible does indeed say what happened, and in what order. It even says when it happened. Oh, sure, estimates of the "when" vary, with a range of about 320 years (215 years for the Sojourn in Egypt, 60 years for the birth of Abraham, and 45 years for the chronology of the Divided Kingdoms Northern and Southern). But you can't get around this simple fact: that the Bible contains back-to-back narratives of human history that span the entire time from creation to the Crucifixion and about thirty years after that. It is the only single source that can make this claim (although The Annals of the World reviews history from multiple sources to cover the same period).

Now the distinction you draw is all very well. But when the Bible does make a statement on the what and even the when as well as the why, you have to deal with it.--TerryHTalk 09:02, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

So what will you do when the Bible says one thing, and the Koran, Talmud or another religious scripture tells another thing. You may believe that the Bible is right, but you can't tell other people that they have to deal with it. Otherwise you say that the Bible (and with it Christianity) is superior to other religions, which seems a very dangerous statement to me.

Dangerous? If you lived in Nazis Germany between 1933 - 1945, or Russia, China, Cuba, ...etc. I'm currently sitting in a country where freedom of religion and speech still apply. Where anybody can say their religion is superior to every other. Liberty and freedom to say and believe what your conscience believes. Maybe some believe that is dangerous. Is that what you mean by being very dangerous?--Roopilots6 12:44, 24 November 2007 (EST)

The rational for the Flying Spagetti Monster is as follows:
There is equal evidence for all gods and supernatural beleifs, therefore the likelihood of the spagetti monster is equal to that of any God. If you ridicule the belief in the spagetti monster then you have to apply the same ridicule to all other religous beleifs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mcai9mh3(talk)

That might be the rationale, but that rationale depends on the presumption that there is "equal evidence for all gods and supernatural beleifs(sic)". As a Christian, I totally reject that presumption, therefore if I do ridicule belief in the spaghetti monster, it does not follow that I have to apply the same ridicule to other beliefs. Philip J. Rayment 07:20, 23 January 2008 (EST)

But the evidence that Christianity and other theistic religions touts is the complexity of design. As a (pseudo) Theistic religion, the Spagetti monster can inherit the same evidence. I have never heard any evidence of one religion being true over another. One can argue from evidence that there is a creator, but which creator you happen to choose from is a matter of faith. This is why the spagetti monster can be said to be as plausable as Allah, Yawheh or the great JuJu under the sea. Mark Hayward (14:34), 23 January 2008 (GMT)

Complexity of design is one area of evidence that Christianity uses; it is not the sum total of evidence. Before you set about critiquing religions that you know next to nothing about, it's a good idea to learn about the topic that you are critiquing; else all you achieve is displaying your ignorance. Philip J. Rayment 20:45, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Care to present any? It is not enough for you to simply assert it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mcai9mh3(talk)

Why not? That's all you did. And no, I don't particularly care to present any. Not for somebody who criticises something that he knows next to nothing about. Philip J. Rayment 09:00, 24 January 2008 (EST)

I have read the bible cover to cover, and most of the Koran. I am not trying to undermine your belief, simply to understand it. I recieve the same reaction from the faithful everytime. They can talk for hours about why there must be a creator, but are stubbornly silent when asked why they have chosen their particular God out of thousands. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mcai9mh3(talk)

You "received the same reaction ... everytime", but the "reaction" you received here was to a different question. You have not asked us why our "particular God" is the right one. And this is not really the place to do it anyway. Philip J. Rayment 20:46, 24 January 2008 (EST)

There is a great deal of evidence to support the "claims" of Christianity, as well as a 2000 year history, as opposed to a recently made up mockery of religion. It's not equivalent.RobertK 20:47, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Longevity is not evidence. There are older beleifs and religions than christianity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mcai9mh3(talk)

That depends on how you look at it, but it is evidence of a sort. See here. Philip J. Rayment 09:00, 24 January 2008 (EST)

Im sorry but that website is a load of waffle. The success of any religion is not a testament to its truth, nor is it a sign of divine favour. If anything religion spreads where there is lack of or poor education and retreats where confronted with it. Hence christianity and islam are on the rise in Africa and latin america, wheras it is in decline in America, Canada, Europe, Australia, Japan and New Zealand. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mcai9mh3(talk)

If you are going to reject a good web-site as "a load of waffle", then you are not really interested in learning. The article I pointed you to did not say that Christianity is true simply because it's been successful. If that's what you think, then you either didn't read it or didn't read it properly. Christianity is on the rise in other places than those you mention, including, I'm reasonably sure, here in Australia, if you discount those who go to church for social reasons or put "Christian" on the census forms out of tradition. In other words, "true" Christians as opposed to "nominal" Christians are increasing in number in Australia, I'd be reasonably sure. Philip J. Rayment 20:46, 24 January 2008 (EST)

Liberal Deceit

Could someone explain how this category demarcation is appropriate? I can grant you the "liberal" part (though I personally think that there's nothing actually liberal about it), but there just is no evidence of deceit. Using the word deceit implies that they are hiding their motives; they say they are a parody religion and they say precisely what their motives are. Maybe a link to the site would help, so you can see for yourself? HelpJazz 10:53, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

I believe that they are deceitful because they are really atheists and rather than saying they want God out of the classroom, they make this ridiculous parody that mocks religion and God. That seems like deceit to me --Konservativekanadian 12:41, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

They are not all Athiests. The Spagetti monster can be used to argue for Deism, Atheism and Agnostisicm.

It was designed to mock creationism, not dogmatism. Philip J. Rayment 20:42, 23 January 2008 (EST)

It was designed to mock beleif in particular gods, not specifically creationism. My point is that it does not ridicule beleif in a creator, just what non-theists consider 'man-made' religions. Therefore, it is not inherintly atheist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mcai9mh3(talk)

It was designed, as the article indicates, as a response to the decision to allow teaching of Intelligent Design in Kansas. In the minds of anti-ID people, ID is creationism. Therefore, it was designed to mock ID and creationism. It does ridicule belief in a creator, by implying that believing in God is equivalent to believing in the spaghetti monster. Philip J. Rayment 20:51, 24 January 2008 (EST)

It's fine if you believe it, but this is an encyclopedia not an op ed section. The Comandments state "Everything you post must be true and verifiable" and "Always cite and give credit to your sources" and "Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry."

If we take a look at the official site, we find the following statement:

Q: Are you an atheist / heathen / what?

A: I don’t have a problem with religion. What I have a problem with is religion posing as science. Teach Creationism in school, fine, but don’t teach it in a science classroom...."

So if you want to make the claim that he is flat out lying, you need some way to back that up, other than just a gut instinct. HelpJazz 13:10, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

Seems more like liberal satire to me. A lot of liberals use satire and snark to make conservatives sound dumb. In fact, you might want to create a new category, "liberal slander," or something like that, and this article might be better suited for that then deceit.-Darius 13:16, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

Satire, yes. The creator of the "religion" (and it's "followers") openly admit that Pastafarianism is supposed to be satire. I still don't think anything more serious (such as deceit or slander) has been properly shown, however. HelpJazz 16:16, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

How is it hypocritical? Or deceitful, for that matter? Barikada 20:45, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer. The user has been blocked for five years. Philip J. Rayment 00:45, 24 January 2008 (EST)

On a related note, may I ask why my edit removing the words "thinly veiled attempt" was reverted? I feel that the statement as it stands now implies that Pastafarians are hoping to deceive somebody about their intentions. They're not. To say that it is a "thinly veiled attempt" at mockery is like saying that calling someone a "dumb stupid-face" is a "thinly veiled attempt" at insult. The phrase is unnecessary and inaccurate. Rstayor 14:52, 9 November 2007 (EDT)

This doesn't strike me as a mockery of the Christian religion, more of a counter-point to Intelligent Design. Teach the controversy, teach ID, evolution, and Pastafarianism! Barikada 19:26, 16 January 2008 (EST)

I didn't know straw man arguments were encyclopedic

Seriously, why is this even here? That Dawkins uses it and that there's a book about it hardly makes it notable. Dawkins is not the atheist god (though they treat him that way, ironically enough) and his word is not truth, and any idget can get a book published by some no-name company and sold on Amazon.com (e.g. William Rivers Pitt). That being said, I could see this being briefly mentioned in the Intelligent Design article in a list of the many straw man arguments atheists/evolutionists use against ID, but it really doesn't deserve its own article. Jinxmchue 10:30, 5 December 2007 (EST)

We've got an article on dazzle painting but not one on camouflage, I doubt notability is a big concern. Aside from that, it's here because it's useful for debates. Barikada 19:26, 16 January 2008 (EST)

Fictional Religion?

Does not make sense. It implies the religion exists only in fiction, reducing our glorious belief system to the level of, say, Khersistianity. Barikada 20:47, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Do you have anything worthwhile to add or are you just trolling? Jinxmchue 23:15, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Hmm? Khersistianity is a religion from an online serial novel, if that's what you're referring to. On that note, troll is not a word to throw around lightly. Barikada 01:24, 24 January 2008 (EST)

It's a multiple choice question. The answer can't possibly be yes. Look, man. I've looked at your contributions, and you seem to be doing little than jumping on me since my ban ended. I'm just saying, it seems kind of weird. Barikada 15:47, 24 January 2008 (EST)

Thinly-veiled mockery?

There's no veil. Pastafarianism is an outright mockery of Christianity and is meant to be so.

Not really. As the article says, Pastafarianism grew from a letter written to Kansas School Board by someone purporting to believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created all things, and looking forward to the day when both Intelligent Design and Pastafarian Creationism would be given equal time as evolution in the classroom (as Pastafarian Creationism had just as much actual evidence supporting it as Intelligent Design did). So it started more as a mockery of the idea that Intelligent Design could be taught as part of science, due to a lack of evidence backing it up, rather than an outright mockery of any religion, per se. Since then, it has somewhat grown, and some people now use it as a full-on parody of religion in general, and sometimes one particular religion. There are also some people who at least claim to be genuine Pastafarians, but, again, this may be more parody. Of course, this, plus the fact the original letter only refers to 'Intelligent Design', not 'Christianity', means the last sentence in the article is not entirely accurate, and it should be reworded to something like, 'Some people use a purported belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Pastafarianism as a thinly veiled attempt to mock Christianity by reducing it to the level of a religion, like Pastafarianism, that someone made up on the spot.' This is, of course, assuming this website is continuing the claim by proponents of Intelligent Design that ID is not faith-based or anything to do with religion, either generally or specifically, but is, instead, based on the evidence. Urushnor 20:49, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

I've changed the line concerned to similar to what you suggested. The claim is not so much that ID has nothing to do with religion, but that it is science. That is, the two are not mutually exclusive. Philip J. Rayment 22:31, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Well, you're not like most IDers I have met or seen the views of - they try as much as possible to make the claim that ID has no connection with religion at all, and propose ID is merely an 'alternative scientific theory', based purely on scientific evidence. You, however, seemingly admit that there is a definite link between religion and ID. Good on you that you're not afraid to admit that. Urushnor 23:39, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

In any case, I'm an old earth creationist, and I believe that ID makes scientific arguments that stand on their own - without any connection to religion. ID is simply the argument that life is too complex to have evolved naturally, and that it shows signs of having been designed.

If you feel this is bad news for atheism, so be it. But that doesn't make ID religious, any more than the theory of evolution is atheistic. --Ed PoorTalk 23:45, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Well, that means that you are claiming that ID does, indeed, have nothing whatsoever to with religion, as I said the claim was, yet Philip came along and said that was not so much the claim as that science and religion are not mutually exclusive (which is, in fact, already perfectly apparant by such beliefs as Theistic Evolution). It's interesting to note, though, that such an statement remains in the article for such a long time without anyone noticing, especially given the recent efforts to distance ID from religion and creationism in order to attempt to get it taught in schools.

Apologies to Philip - I should have been aware you were a YEC believer. Urushnor 00:12, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Yes, I am a YEC, not an ID advocate per se, although YECs have been using design arguments for longer than ID has been around as a movement.

I should clarify my comment above about the relationship between ID and religion. ID proponents do try and distance themselves from religion, and for good reason. First, ID is often described as being a new form of creationism. This ignores the fact that a significant number of ID advocates are not creationists, and a larger group are not YECs. Second, ID advocates deny that they are bringing God into the argument. They are correct in this, as they specifically avoid saying who the designer is.

The point is, for some (perhaps most) ID advocates, religious views are their basis. But that doesn't mean that ID is religious in nature. They are trying to do real science, regardless of their religious basis. Claiming that ID is religious in nature is exactly like me claiming that evolution is religious (atheistic) in nature (which I do claim). Yet when I claim that, I'm very quickly told that there is a distinction between the atheism of, for example, Richard Dawkins and the science of evolution. That is, despite Dawkins having an atheistic basis for his belief in evolution, evolution is still science. The same applies for ID: Just because some/many of its proponents are "religious" and see ID as affirming that, doesn't mean that ID can't be considered science.

Ah, but you see, that is where ID and evolution DO differ. For most IDers, as you say, ID is based in religion, and is based on the notion of the existence of some Designer - which is utterly unproven, and, at it's heart, is a religious belief, even if it does not name the Creator (though, to be frank, on most, if not all, ID literature I have seen, the word 'God' screams from between every line). Evolution is purely scientific - in other words, it is based on evidence, and only evidence. To date, no-one has come up with clear, solid evidence of the existence of God (or any other deity), so, until someone does, evolution will be based on the idea that no such deity exists. Science and religion can co-exist, but they can't intermingle, except 'at the edges', so to speak (Theistic Evolution, for example, is one example of science and religion intermingling 'at the edges' - science explains the 'Evolution' part, and religion only really adds 'but a deity kicked the whole thing off' to give it the 'Theistic' part) without compromising one or the other, or both. They are, in essence, two completely different ways of looking at the universe. Urushnor 12:40, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

"...some Designer - which is utterly unproven...". On the contrary, I've offered "proof" (whatever that means exactly) a number of times. It may not be the sort of "proof" that you'd like (or accept—but then would you accept anything?), but it's false to say that a Designer is utterly unproven. Not proven to your satisfaction would be more accurate.

If you add that 'to my satisfaction' is 'based on independant solid evidence', then I'll go along with that. All the 'proof' I have seen offered by anyone, including yourself, relies on circular reasoning - the evidence proves the Creator, and the existence of the Creator proves the evidence. Urushnor 23:32, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

"...at it's heart, is a religious belief...": "religion" = to do with God (according to your definition, although that's not the only definition). Creator = God. So your sentence is really saying, "Intelligent Design, at it's heart, is a belief about a Designer". Wow! Really?

Yep, I'll agree with that - Intelligent Design, at it's heart, is a BELIEF about a Designer. In other words, a belief lacking solid evidence. Urushnor 23:32, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

"Evolution is purely scientific - in other words, it is based on evidence, and only evidence": So evolutionists keep claiming. And creationists keep refuting. Simply repeating the claim does not make it so.

No, creationists attempt to refute it. So far, I haven't actually seen any succeed. Yourself, for example, tried to refute it by making the claim that Darwin came up with evolution to 'do away with God', rather than because that's what his study of the evidence suggested. When asked for evidence, you came up with two citations - one quoting Michael Ruse, who appeared to make an easily disproven sweeping generalisation saying that all evolutionists regard evolution as a religion, but didn't actually reference Darwin at all, and another which was an article which claimed Steven Gould said something similar, but didn't even supply what he actually said. Urushnor 23:32, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

"To date, no-one has come up with clear, solid evidence of the existence of God...": Simply not true.

Really? What is this evidence then? I'd like to see it, bearing in mind that referring to the Bible means you're applying circular logic. Urushnor 23:32, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

"...until someone does, evolution will be based on the idea that no such deity exists.": In other words, until the existence of God is proved, evolutionists won't even consider the possibility of an alternative. That's called a closed mind. It is also unscientific.

Oh, no, it is perfectly possible for an evolutionist to consider it as a possibility - but then reject it due to lack of evidence. Which is the epitome of 'scientific'. Urushnor 23:32, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

If an archaeologist finds a stone tool, he is able to determine that it was created by an intelligent designer (i.e. a human being), without having to have proof that the designer existed! In fact, the mere existence of the intelligently-designed stone tool is itself evidence for the designer!

Because such tools show clear evidence of being a tool, as opposed to just another rock, such as showing marks where it had been hit with rocks in order to shape it to an edge or point. To date, no-one has shown evidence of a similar nature in living organisms. As I say below, the nearest there has been to that is people claiming that life is too complex for evolution to explain it. Urushnor 23:32, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

So your argument amounts to this: (1) I won't believe in a Designer/God until I have proof/evidence. (2) Here's proof/evidence: We can see that living things have been intelligently designed. (3) That proof/evidence is not acceptable because it requires that there be a Designer, which hasn't been proved. Tails you win; heads I lose.

Yep, because what you're doing there is applying circular logic - the evidence proves the existence of the Designer, but that self-same evidence is only really valid if you accept the notion that the Designer exists. What is needed to make ID scientific is solid evidence independant of this little circle. Urushnor 23:32, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

"Science and religion can co-exist...": Of course they can! Science started because of a Christian worldview!

Neat trick - the first thing that could really be called science was around significantly before Christianity was. Urushnor 23:32, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

"evolution will be based on the idea that no such deity exists", "Theistic Evolution,...adds 'but a deity kicked the whole thing off' to give it the 'Theistic' part": That's one of the problems with Theistic evolution: It essentially says that God used a process that supposedly means that He wasn't involved.

Well, the whole basis of the 'Theistic' part of Theistic Evolution is, basically, that He (or someone like Him) was involved, so I'm not really seeing how that's actually a problem. Urushnor 23:32, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Exactly what does ID have to do with religion?

Are there any churches called "the Church of the Intelligent Designer?" Are there any religious books that teach the religious precepts of the ID religion? Are there any theological seminaries devoted to the ID religion? If ID is a religion, then is it exempt from being taxed? Jinxmchue 10:28, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

No, ID is not a religion. But it does have religious implications and it does have a lot of support from some religions (theistic ones) and a lot opposition from others (atheistic ones). Philip J. Rayment 10:58, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Actually, the argument is that ID purports to be based on science, but the only arguments based on evidence that backs up ID are also based on the preconception that there is a designer - which, at heart, is a religious belief, and remains completely unproven. Conversely, evolution does not definitively say 'God does not exist', it says, 'there is no solid evidence that God exists', which is a slight but important difference, and, to properly apply the scientific process, if you claim that life was designed by God, or some other creator, you either have to come up with independant, solid evidence of the existence of that creator, and/or come up with clear-cut, solid evidence of that creator designing life. To date, no-one has come up with either. The closest people have come is pointing out the complexity of life and claiming that it's too complex to have arose by evolution, and, indeed, many IDers generally submit evidence that, in their eyes, throws doubt on evolution, rather than positively supports ID. Urushnor 12:40, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Much of that was a repeat of your other post above, and which I've just answered. Philip J. Rayment 22:10, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

If buildings were found on Mars, would it be a religious beliefs to say they obviously had a designer? And evolution, as it is argued, has no opinion and will never have any opinion on God. Not directly, anyway. Finally, not all science is based on repeatable experiments. One can easily make scientific deductions purely from observation (e.g. astronomy), and that's exactly what ID does. Jinxmchue 19:05, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

The theory of evolution also has religious implications and also has a lot of support from religions. Try to argue that evolution has anything to do with religion, though, and you'll find yourself on the receiving end of endless mocking and ridicule. Jinxmchue 18:51, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

FSM is nothing more than a reworking of the IPU

Atheists originally started mocking Christians using the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Their usage of the Flying Spaghetti Monster - from symbols that mock the Jesus fish to phrases like "have you been touched by his noodly appendage" - shows that it is not as much a mocking of ID as it is Christianity. IDers don't have anything like the Jesus fish and they don't go around saying things like "have you been touched by blah blah blah." Jinxmchue 22:13, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

Come now, the problem with that argument is that you are assuming that the atheists will be logical and fair. You're right, it's mocking Christianity, but that's not because it was conceived to mock Christianity rather than ID, but simply because those atheists consider ID to be Christianity masquerading as science. Of course evolution is not atheism masquerading as science, dear no; you must remember to keep the beliefs of the evolutionists separate to their science. But with ID, their beliefs and motives can't be separated from the theory. Didn't you know that? <sarcasm off/> Philip J. Rayment 02:52, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

unprotect

Could we try unprotecting this again? HelpJazz 14:00, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

More content

My last revision was removed. Maybe because of my "invalid" username, maybe for some other reason. Any objections to me adding it back? I though i'd ask first. ShawnJ 21:45, 24 November 2008 (EST)

Ok, there being no objections, I'm going to go ahead and re-add the portion that was deleted. If anyone can come up with a reason to revert it, again, then let me know. ShawnJ 22:38, 27 November 2008 (EST)

I see that three different edits have recently been made by three different editors, and all three have been reverted without explanation, despite none of them being vandalism or obviously inappropriate.

As for ShawnJ's edit, my view is that the added information is not particularly relevant. I'd like to see some justification for it being in the article.

My whole point of adding that info is that this article seems to focus more on the origin of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and not on what the Flying Spaghetti Monster is. When explaining a fictional creature, noting it's powers and abilities is relevant. ShawnJ 11:59, 13 December 2008 (EST)

You've done little more than simply restate the claim: Simply claiming that "noting it's powers an abilities is relevant" is not explaining why they are relevant. They are not relevant simply because you say they are. Philip J. Rayment 20:40, 16 December 2008 (EST)

They are relevant because they contribute to the definition of what the Flying Spaghetti monster is, and what it can fictionally do. Just like noting in the article about Spider-man that he has the proportionate strength and agility of a spider and can stick to walls. Fictional characters are often defined by their powers.ShawnJ 17:34, 19 December 2008 (EST)

This article is not so much about the fictional character, but about the attempt to mock Christianity. The article already says that it is a parody, clearly implying that it is a parody of God, and therefore one would expect that it has the powers of God. Of the list of powers and abilities that the article currently shows, the only one that doesn't apply to God is the last one, that of deception. I concede that that last one deserves a mention, but think that the others could be covered by a simply statement, rather than by a list in its own section. Philip J. Rayment 03:23, 14 January 2009 (EST)

I guess that's where we differ then, I want to fill out this article with more information about the fictional character. A parody does not necessarily imply the same powers and abilities though. I'd point to the movie The Life of Brian for example. I concede that, with the exception of the last point, the others can be covered by a blanket statement of "Has all the powers of God". ShawnJ 17:08, 15 January 2009 (EST)

I would like to see others' opinions on how much we include (and rationale for those opinions). Spiderman, to take your example, is interesting in his own right. The FSM is interesting not in its own right, but as a parody of the Creator. Insofar as its powers are relevant to that parody, they deserve a mention, but I'm still not convinced that they need much discussion otherwise. Philip J. Rayment 18:22, 15 January 2009 (EST)

PJR and Fact tags

The FSM's main purpose is to poke fun at the idea of teaching a religious creation story in a science classroom. It can be taken as a jab at any religious dogma, but it's primary use is more or less indisputable.
Would Conservapedia's Islam article count as a valid source? RodWeathers recently blocked a user for suggesting that Intelligent Design was only an accepted belief of Muslims and Christians, rather than being the only belief. If the Conservapedia article is correct and Islam subscribes entirely to Intelligent Design and does not recognize evolutionary theory at all. It would follow that something that pokes fun at a belief in ID and by extension, Christianity, would also be mocking other religions that prescribe to the same belief. I can't speak for Judaism however so I will remove that one if you like. If I am incorrect in my reasoning, or if the CP article on Islam is incorrect in it's statement, let me know and I'll gladly fix them. --TuckerM 14:07, 13 December 2008 (EST)

To be precise (pedantic?), RodWeathers didn't do what you say. That is, the article talks about Christianity and Islam, not Christians and Muslims. I agree that many Christians and Muslims—the people—accept evolution; but whether or not Christianity and Islam—the religions, or sets of beliefs–accept evolution may be another matter.

But that's a bit beside the point. My Fact tag and hidden comment were not querying whether the FSM can be applied to Islam and Judaism, but whether the FSM is "an attempt to mock" those two along with Christianity. Muslims and Jews have not, for the most part (i.e. thare are exceptions) been involved with ID (nor creationism). Those involved prominently have been Christians, agnostics (e.g. Michael Denton), and at least one member of the Unification church (Wells); I'm not sure that any (religious) Jews or Muslims have been that involved.

ID is seen by its critics as a form of creationism (ignoring the pertinent differences), and creationism also has been particularly a Christian matter, although again that's not to deny that there has been some support from Muslims and Jews.

To in summary, to say that the FSM is "an attempt to mock" Christianity and Islam and Judaism as though they were all equally targeted is, I believe, inaccurate.